Citizenship Skills

As much as anything else this post may be an illustration of how far afield I’m taken in writing a post. One of my regular daily stops is the opinion section of the Christian Science Monitor, a generally excellent online newspaper. This morning when I read this in a a CSM editorial:

This week, the US Department of Education began a campaign to uplift the nation’s “civic health,” mainly through reform of higher education. It sponsored a report called “A Crucible Moment,” compiled by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, that provides ways to restore one of higher education’s mission as the “carrier of democratic values.”

The task is not easy. “I know that we can’t easily measure civic consciousness or test it or boil it down to a number on a spreadsheet. But we value it and honor it because it is central to our identity as Americans,” says US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

my immediate reaction was “Huh?!” All sorts of things are jumbled together in the editorial—civic consciousness, civics education, and knowledge of the details of our government (like “Which party has a majority in the U. S. Senate?”).

I decided to look at one aspect of civic consciousness that is highly studied: voter turnout. As it turns out there are some things that are only weakly correlated or not correlated at all with the likelihood to turn out and vote: leisure time, race (at least in the 2008 election) and there are some things that are strongly correlated with turning out and voting: age, income, IQ (see also here), education.

I am skeptical that voter suppression is a significant reason for low turnouts among the poor (just as I am skeptical about claims of widespread systematic voting fraud). If that were the case I think we would see many, many more cases in the courts than actually are. Either that or there’s a conspiracy on an unimaginable scale. I’m pretty skeptical about conspiracies that would involve tens of thousands of conspirators all keeping their mouths shut.

However, with respect to the correlation between education and voting there’s a funny thing. Education predicts whether individuals will vote, but over time rising levels of education did not increase aggregate turnout. That’s referred to as “Brody’s Puzzle”, after Richard Brody who made the observation back in 1978.

One of the references above suggests something rather interesting: there may be a genetic propensity, mediated by IQ, to vote. My inclination is to think that the correlation between education and voting is mostly because education is a weak proxy for intelligence as is income (and, for that matter, age). It may be that there’s some complex of genetic predispositions, learned behaviors, and abilities that predisposes one to civic participation including voting.

I was unable to uncover any demonstration that particular curricula were associated with higher levels of voter turnout. If you’re aware of any, I would appreciate knowing about it.

My key point here is that it sounds very much as though the Department of Education is spitting into the wind on this. Civic participation and voting are probably among the many things that may be learned but not taught.

My initial reaction to the editorial was that the decline in civic participation might be related to a decline in participation in organizations for the young that encourage civic participation, e.g. the Boy Scouts. I’ll write more about the Scouts another time. Were you aware that although only 2% of the population of the U. S. are Mormons, 20% of those enrolling the Boy Scouts are Mormons? Me, neither. I can’t help but wonder if there’s some relation between that and two of the present Republican candidates for president being Mormon. Civic participation, organizational and institutional participation and support, etc. I may touch on this again.

Update

More on genetics and voting here. The guess is that the genes mentioned influence “pro-social” behaviors. Basically, the more likely you are to be a joiner the more likely you are to vote. Dunno.

33 comments… add one
  • Ben Wolf Link

    Mostly off-topic, but one of my favorite civics tests here:

    http://www.bbhq.com/civquiz.htm

  • That was fun. All except one right. I never had to memorize the signers of the Declaration of the Independence.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Oh my God. Are you telling me the smart people are voting? This is the government we get when the smart people are voting?

  • Drew Link

    I quit after missing the first question. 57 stars. Obama told me so, so I went with it……..

    Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk

  • Oh my God. Are you telling me the smart people are voting?

    Discouraging, isn’t it? I keep writing how stupid smart people can be and nobody believes me. 😉 Intelligence is no guarantee of prudence.

    And then there’s another problem I’ve written about ad nauseam: the notion that compromise means meeting half way. IMO more often than not half way is idiotic.

  • Ben Wolf Link

    @Michal Reynolds

    I think to some extent the government we get can’t help being what it is. The system has a tendency to force players to fit its paradigm, and that system has been accumulating distortions, feedback loops and contradictions for a very long time. Considering the fundamental compromises the Founders were forced to make just to get this rocket off the ground I at times wonder that where we are now might have been inevitable.

  • Drew Link

    Oh my God. Are you telling me the smart people are voting? This is the government we get when the smart people are voting?

    And so tell me again why you support bigger government………………?

  • The system has a tendency to force players to fit its paradigm, and that system has been accumulating distortions, feedback loops and contradictions for a very long time.

    Good list. Another problem is path dependency. Quite frequently, perhaps nearly always, selecting one path precludes taking different alternatives later.

  • Icepick Link

    Good list. Another problem is path dependency. Quite frequently, perhaps nearly always, selecting one path precludes taking different alternatives later.

    All of this is characteristic of complex systems – there ain’t any form of government that won’t have these problems.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Drew:

    Because the government may be run by cretins and poltroons (to quote myself) but business is run by people who calculate whether it makes good sense from a quarterly profits perspective to sell food contaminated with salmonella. (Hmmm, if we kill three people and only one of them has a good lawyer. . .) And by people who think it’s cute to steal from their own customers. And people who get their cronies to rate dog turds as safe investments and then crash the economy. And people who rob their employees. And people who throw other people out of their homes for fun and profit.

    Then there’s the fact that without government old folks would be back to eating dog food and children would die of diseases that could be prevented for fifty cents. And the rivers would be sewers again, and the lakes as well, and the air would be unbreathable.

    And let’s see, what else? Airline safety, roads, the FBI, fighting kiddie porn and sex slavery, SEAL team 6, the space program, major medical and scientific research. I could go on. And on.

    So long as Comcast exists, don’t try to sell me the magical wonders of business.

    The solution to “That’s a lousy burger,” is not, “Then let’s stop eating!” The answer is, “Let’s make better burgers.”

  • PD Shaw Link

    The use of terminology in that piece is weird; almost every term set off in quotes, especially “Civics recession” borders on the Orwellian. I was waiting for a call for the appointment of a Czar of Freedom and Hope.

    On the Mormon thing, I found the state-by-state turnout results from 2010 interesting: http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voter-turnout-2010.html

    Utah had the third worst voter turnout rate in 2010. I have to wonder about the relationship between turnout and mono-party districts and states. Utah is very solidly Republican; perhaps the perceived value of voting is diminished because of it. If so, the increase in non-contested Congressional districts across the country might also relate to reducing voter turnout.

    The states with high voter turnouts appear to be cold states, adjoining Canada or with at most one state between (plus Colorado). They might be older, or have more New England / Scandinavian ancestry.

  • Icepick Link

    Took the quiz and got 51 out of 53 correct. I left the one about the last name on the DofI blank. I also got another one wrong they didn’t count – I was off by 18 years on the Magna Charta. Still trying to figure out which others I got wrong.

    Ah, there’s the other one. I thought the Cabinet positions had (at least those in existence as of that date) been enumerated in the XXV Amendment, in order to list the Presidential Succession order more precisely. I guess that must be solely a matter of Law after the Veep. (In fact, looking into the matter it clarified what I thought had been a mistake in the bio of Grant I’ve been reading. The author was correct that if A. Johnson had been impeached the job would have falled to the President Pro Temp of the Senate, there being no Veep at that time. In the process I’ve learned a couple of things. DAMNIT.)

    The mistake I spotted first was the one about the US government having its own supply of money. I think the test is wrong as a matter of practicality, and answered accordingly even though I was certain the test makers would think otherwise.

  • Icepick Link

    I was waiting for a call for the appointment of a Czar of Freedom and Hope.

    As Dave likes to quote, “The beatings will continue until morale improves!”

  • Andy Link

    To me the obvious factor is generational. The boomers are, as a cohort, much less civic-minded than their predecessors and are much more likely to view politics from the perspective of “what’s in it for me?”

  • The states with high voter turnouts appear to be cold states, adjoining Canada or with at most one state between (plus Colorado). They might be older, or have more New England / Scandinavian ancestry.

    Low proportion of Hispanics compared with other states except for Colorado. U. S. citizen Hispanics vote at an extremely low rate. The question may be why is the voter turnout in Colorado so high?

  • Andy Link

    I’m from Colorado and can’t really answer that. I would say it’s part of the frontier mountain communal spirit, but that’s pretty much gone now thanks to the influx of Texans and Californians.

    Another interesting factoid is that Colorado is the least obese state and also has one of the highest (if not the highest) rates of skin cancer. Denver is also one of the few cities with professional teams in every major sport (football, soccer, baseball, basketball, hockey).

    So, maybe skinny, cancerous people who like sports also really like to vote.

  • Drew Link

    The only thing I can say to you Michael is that I’m glad I don’t live in the bitter little world you apparently do. Ive been an owner in a couple dozen businesses and am intimately familiar with hundreds. I do not know one instance of a calculation of salmonella and death vs profits etc etc. Call me crazy, but killing your customers is bad business.

    Did you see Dave’s comment about calling his clients and keeping in t ouch with them on a regular basis? that’s real world business.

    You worldview on business is pathetically cartoonish. By the way, how is Obama’s Chevy “Blazer” er,um Volt doing Mr Safety?

  • TastyBits Link

    If you feel your vote will not matter, it is not worth your time to vote.

  • Yes, TastyBits, trust is definitely a factor. American distrust of government is practically proverbial and correlated with lower voter turnout.

  • Then there’s the fact that without government old folks would be back to eating dog food and children would die of diseases that could be prevented for fifty cents. And the rivers would be sewers again, and the lakes as well, and the air would be unbreathable.

    And let’s see, what else? Airline safety, roads, the FBI, fighting kiddie porn and sex slavery, SEAL team 6, the space program, major medical and scientific research. I could go on. And on.

    So long as Comcast exists, don’t try to sell me the magical wonders of business.

    The solution to “That’s a lousy burger,” is not, “Then let’s stop eating!” The answer is, “Let’s make better burgers.”</blockquote?

    Can you mix your metaphores any more Michael?

    The last line is how competition in the market place can make people better off, not worse.

    Yes, there are problems with things like pollution and so forth, but the solution is not necessarily government (i.e. the EPA style solutions). That you think this is the only solution really shows how limited your imagination is and for some reason an odd proclivity for systems that rely on coercion and violence.

    Hint

  • Dammit, forgot the closing block quote tag…

    The 4 paragraphs are Michaels….

  • michael reynolds Link

    Drew:

    Yes, Drew, all business people are lovely, wonderful, god-fearing, apple pie eating, mother-calling folks. While government is the devil.

    I should have seen that.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Yes, there are problems with things like pollution and so forth, but the solution is not necessarily government (i.e. the EPA style solutions). That you think this is the only solution really shows how limited your imagination is and for some reason an odd proclivity for systems that rely on coercion and violence.

    Tired libertarian drivel much?

    Once again, since we’re doing quizzes:

    1) Of the wealthy, happy, successful countries on earth, countries where any of us could imagine actually living, what percentage have government regulation of business?

    Answer: 100%

    2) Congo. Too much government regulation?

    Answer: Not really.

  • Drew Link

    Your 100% vs 0% shows your lack of sensibility and credibility, Michael. A pity.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Drew:

    Wait, you mean it’s not 100%?

    Do you mean to imply that some businessmen are bad and some government good? Because I have to warn you: that argues for a balance between the two. Using one to limit and control the other.

    Which, if I’m not mistaken, is my point.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Summarizing what we’ve learned so far: both government and business have an impact on the lives of citizens. Both are capable of extremes, of doing bad things.

    100% of successful nations rely on a balance between government and capital.

    0% of existing successful nations are Ayn Randian paradises of pure unfettered libertarianism.

    Did I miss some part of the lesson?

  • No Michael, I don’t think Ostrom can be classified as a “libertarian” at all. My point is that you don’t always need the coercive approach, that in some contexts the voluntary approach works.

    Answer: 100%

    There was no government, not as you’d recognize it, in the Ukraine Free Territory. There was virtually no government, that you’d recognize, in the early days of Pennsylvania (much to William Penn’s annoyance).

    My point is that we don’t have to always resort to the coercive top down/one size fits all approach all the time. That is Ostrom’s point as well. Whenever possible, if the voluntary approach works, why not use it?

    Summarizing what we’ve learned so far: both government and business have an impact on the lives of citizens. Both are capable of extremes, of doing bad things.

    What you keep conveniently ignoring is that only government has a legal right to use violence and even kill its own citizens. That you can’t see this distinction or refuse to acknowledge it and take a very skeptical (and I’d argue healthy and sensible) suspicion of and reluctance to use government power is…lets just use the word problematic.

    0% of existing successful nations are Ayn Randian paradises of pure unfettered libertarianism.

    WTF are you talking about here? Where have I advocated a Randian style government? Go look at many of my posts on Outside the Beltway where I talk about health care, the budget, and the economy. I don’t think I’ve ever advocated a Randian style government/policy. In fact, I have called for both spending cuts and tax increases to address out fiscal situation. With regards to health care I think we should consider a national voucher program to try and harness the cost savings of the market place and at the same time ensure everyone of being able to obtain the coverage they think works best for them.

    How the fuck do you get Randian from that?

    Oh, and the “libetarian paradise” is great rhetoric, but it is also completely dishonest…intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Nowhere have I argued that purusing more market based policies will lead to a paradise. I do think it will lead to a preferable outcome, but that is a far cry from paradise.

  • michael reynolds Link

    What you keep conveniently ignoring is that only government has a legal right to use violence and even kill its own citizens.

    I don’t deny that. Government is the instrument we empower to use violence. Therefore yes, it is the legal user of violence. So what, exactly? Sometimes violence is required. Better we handle it legally, right? With limitations clearly spelled out.

    As for the rest, I will confess that sometimes I get lazy and conflate you and Drew and argue both simultaneously in a single comment. I can see where this would irritate you, and I’ll try harder to avoid that.

  • Sam Link

    If you feel your vote will not matter, it is not worth your time to vote.

    The chance that your vote will matter is less than the chance of winning the lottery in most cases. Smart people are supposed to know this. I’ve decided not to vote unless the odds my vote will matter are more than 1 in 10.

  • I don’t deny that. Government is the instrument we empower to use violence. Therefore yes, it is the legal user of violence. So what, exactly?

    It makes government fundamentally different than business. Business can’t raid your house and shoot your dog. Business can’t detain your. Business can’t shoot you. Not legally. Of the two government should be regarded with more concern than business.

    Better we handle it legally, right? With limitations clearly spelled out.

    You mean like this? Or how about this? Or the thousands of others. And how come the government doesn’t keep track of police raids? Maybe because we’d see how wide spread the use of SWAT teams are and how often they screw up (noted exception Maryland where a law was passed to track SWAT raids after a town’s mayor was raided and his two dogs shot even though he did nothing wrong)?

    Yeah, violence is a good thing. Sure. I think a better way to put it is that violence is sometimes regrettably necessary. Tray spending a week going to Radley Balko’s website and if you don’t find it depressing at times, then I’m at a loss. Or you can just start here and keep reading until you can’t anymore. This article is good too.

  • Oh, I eagerly await the articles you have showing the use of excessive force by corporations.

  • And how come the government doesn’t keep track of police raids?

    Probably for the same reason that crime resolution statistics are so hard to come by: it would reflect badly on them.

  • Dave,

    Exactly! And it isn’t just SWAT raids, in your state Dave it is illegal to record cops when in a public place. I can record you, you can record me. If we are in public you and I have no expectation of privacy. But not when it comes to cops. They are special apparently. And lets not get into all the corruption and horror stories coming out about Chicago PD.

    As I noted on another website…with cops like this who needs the mafia.

    For those who wont click the link….

    VICTOR RAMOS GUZMAN and his brother-in-law noticed a Virginia state trooper pull up beside them as they traveled on Interstate 95 near Emporia, Va., in November. “A police car drove by in parallel, looked at our faces and on no more than that decided to stop us,” Mr. Guzman said in a sworn affidavit.

    Virginia State Police say the men were speeding, driving 86 mph in a 70 mph zone and “following too closely.” But the trooper did not issue a ticket that morning despite the allegedly excessive speed nor did he charge the men with any civil or criminal violations. He did, however, seize $28,500 in cash.

    […]

    Misunderstandings cannot be discounted; English is a second language for Mr. Guzman. But there is also a simple explanation: The money wasn’t theirs. Mr. Guzman, an El Salvador native and lawful Northern Virginia resident, says he was transporting money for the church in which he serves as secretary. He told the officer he and his brother-in-law were taking $24,000 of the church’s cash to Atlanta to meet with the owner of a parcel of land in El Salvador, where the church hoped to build. He said $4,000 in his possession was set aside to buy a trailer for church-owned land in North Carolina, and $500 was earmarked to cover the trip’s expenses. A lawyer for the church confirms Mr. Guzman’s account.

    After calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the trooper ordered the men to drive to a nearby police station, where he seized the cash and gave them a receipt. The money is being held by an arm of the immigration service, which is determining whether it should be returned. Mr. Guzman and the church have asked that the matter be referred to a federal court.

    These guys might get their money back…well their church’s money. But think about somebody who is travelling with $2,000 in cash. Can an individual fight this? Over that much? Probably not. Why do the cops do this? They get a chunk of that money. A big chunk, in some cases up to 80%

    A few hundred years ago we called it highway robbery. Today Michael calls it law enforcement and is glad for it…well until it happens to him.

    The temptation is to say, “oh these are isolated incidents.” Yeah, over 50,000 such SWAT deployments a year. People get killed in these things, sometimes even innocent people like Kathryn Johnston, Eurie Stamps, William Cooper, Tarika Wilson, and more. But hey, violence is sometimes is required, and we can trust the government to do so appropriately and with limits.

Leave a Comment